Critiques of Michel Foucault

[trentcath]

Hey,

Not sure if this is the right forum but wasn't sure where else to put it.

I'm currently an assignment on Michel Foucault for my doctorate, I hate it and have in fact boycotted half the readings and classes but now need to write an assignment on "How law appears in Michel Foucault". I'm pretty sure he's a persona non grata in Catholicism and so was hoping someone might be able to point me in the direction of critiques of his work, the more critical the better 

Many thanks in advance!

[PerEvangelicaDicta]

Not in depth as you'd need, but an interesting critical overview via interview with Daniel Zamora:
google translate version
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=https://www.revue-ballast.fr/peut-on-critiquer-foucault/&prev=search
https://www.revue-ballast.fr/peut-on-critiquer-foucault/

[Habitual_Ritual]

Fools, Frauds and Firebrands by Roger Scruton

[Habitual_Ritual]

What I hate about Foucault



http://www.neoliberalismo.com/Foucault.htm

[Heinrich]

You can get some anecdotes from E Michael Jones

[Maximilian]

Probably no help for your paper, but I recently stumbled across this video:

[trentcath]

Thanks for the replies all but could always do with more, especially a link to something solid or detailed 

[Kirin]

Might I ask why you are so resistant to hearing what Focault has to say? Disagreeable or not to your ears, even Dominican inquisitors previously used to familiarize themselves with the direct words of their designated enemies; even if only to find points to ridicule.

Boycotting lectures during your Doctoral preparation was nothing short of foolish, while an undergrad might manage to get away with this and revise published works the level of debate you will be expected to debate in does not always trickle down to common consumption materials until several years later by which time it is often irrelevant.

However, to begin the exploration a brief introduction may be found on Amazon in the form of "Philosophy in an hour: Focault". A more advanced though rather more expensive exposition of his work including points of criticism can be found on the Great Courses Website where you can purchase an entire lecture series, one being on Law, addressing aspects of his work.

Though truly, trying to write an assignment at this level about a man whose works you've never read is madness and when it comes to the Viva Voce you will be nothing short of annihilated by peers who will expect you to be able to quote the works of the man you are trying to discredit. I spent a good portion of my first PhD dismantling the work of Elizabeth Anscombe, and though I virulently disagreed with her I still read her works to understand her. Crime and Punish would be a natural starting point for an analysis of the creation of a culture and its code of conduct I would suggest.

[trentcath]

Might I ask why you are so resistant to hearing what Focault has to say? Disagreeable or not to your ears, even Dominican inquisitors previously used to familiarize themselves with the direct words of their designated enemies; even if only to find points to ridicule.

Why am I resistant to imbibing poison you ask? The reason should be obvious.

Boycotting lectures during your Doctoral preparation was nothing short of foolish, while an undergrad might manage to get away with this and revise published works the level of debate you will be expected to debate in does not always trickle down to common consumption materials until several years later by which time it is often irrelevant.

I don't have to debate about Foucault, I have to pass a course and then deal with my actual doctoral subject which has nothing to do with Foucault.

However, to begin the exploration a brief introduction may be found on Amazon in the form of "Philosophy in an hour: Focault". A more advanced though rather more expensive exposition of his work including points of criticism can be found on the Great Courses Website where you can purchase an entire lecture series, one being on Law, addressing aspects of his work.

Cheers!

Though truly, trying to write an assignment at this level about a man whose works you've never read is madness and when it comes to the Viva Voce you will be nothing short of annihilated by peers who will expect you to be able to quote the works of the man you are trying to discredit. I spent a good portion of my first PhD dismantling the work of Elizabeth Anscombe, and though I virulently disagreed with her I still read her works to understand her. Crime and Punish would be a natural starting point for an analysis of the creation of a culture and its code of conduct I would suggest.

As I said I won't ever be encountering or mentioning him again, we are just forced to study him for one half semester course for some reason... 

[Kirin]

Why am I resistant to imbibing poison you ask? The reason should be obvious.

Not really, because at this level and indeed earlier refusing to familiarize oneself with an opposing point of view is not taken as an act of nobility, but an admission of defeat.

You may see yourself as avoiding sin, but you examiners and peers will read it as an inability to prove him wrong and an unwillingness to reason logically. Non-engagement is rarely an option. 

I wish anyone who makes it this far the best of luck, so I don't say this to offend; only to try to help.

I don't have to debate about Foucault, I have to pass a course and then deal with my actual doctoral subject which has nothing to do with Foucault. 

If it's in Philosophy everything in mainstream philosophy comes back to Focault at some point. He might not be as well known as Aristotle, but he's far, far, far more influential on modern day thinkers than the great minds people tend to name in this area. Even moreso than the likes of Freud, Nietzche and Bordeiu.

As I said I won't ever be encountering or mentioning him again, we are just forced to study him for one half semester course for some reason... 

If you're studying philosophy as a living evolving area, rather than a specific time period such as Scholasticism you will be. You'd be surprised how often he rears his head, even if only to be attacked the same way Nietzche has been the hate figure for Theologians for the past 150 years (despite "God is Dead" not meaning anything remotely close to how it literally reads  )

[trentcath]

Why am I resistant to imbibing poison you ask? The reason should be obvious.

Not really, because at this level and indeed earlier refusing to familiarize oneself with an opposing point of view is not taken as an act of nobility, but an admission of defeat.

You may see yourself as avoiding sin, but you examiners and peers will read it as an inability to prove him wrong and an unwillingness to reason logically. Non-engagement is rarely an option. 

I wish anyone who makes it this far the best of luck, so I don't say this to offend; only to try to help.

I don't have to debate about Foucault, I have to pass a course and then deal with my actual doctoral subject which has nothing to do with Foucault. 

If it's in Philosophy everything in mainstream philosophy comes back to Focault at some point. He might not be as well known as Aristotle, but he's far, far, far more influential on modern day thinkers than the great minds people tend to name in this area. Even moreso than the likes of Freud, Nietzche and Bordeiu.

As I said I won't ever be encountering or mentioning him again, we are just forced to study him for one half semester course for some reason... 

If you're studying philosophy as a living evolving area, rather than a specific time period such as Scholasticism you will be. You'd be surprised how often he rears his head, even if only to be attacked the same way Nietzche has been the hate figure for Theologians for the past 150 years (despite "God is Dead" not meaning anything remotely close to how it literally reads  )

As I said, it's one course and then I'm done. Gone. Finished. Finito. My doctorate is in law so why we need to study someone who isn't even a jurist is beyond me 

And yeah, sorry, but I'm not reading modern garbage. Far better to try and read somewhat healthy stuff rather than the SJW's favourite philosopher, I mean he had pretty much every protected characteristic you could think of...